IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0140029.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preferences of Knowledge Users for Two Formats of Summarizing Results from Systematic Reviews: Infographics and Critical Appraisals

Author

Listed:
  • Katelynn Crick
  • Lisa Hartling

Abstract

Objectives: To examine and compare preferences of knowledge users for two different formats of summarizing results from systematic reviews: infographics and critical appraisals. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Annual members’ meeting of a Network of Centres of Excellence in Knowledge Mobilization called TREKK (Translating Emergency Knowledge for Kids). TREKK is a national network of researchers, clinicians, health consumers, and relevant organizations with the goal of mobilizing knowledge to improve emergency care for children. Participants: Members of the TREKK Network attending the annual meeting in October 2013. Outcome Measures: Overall preference for infographic vs. critical appraisal format. Members’ rating of each format on a 10-point Likert scale for clarity, comprehensibility, and aesthetic appeal. Members’ impressions of the appropriateness of the two formats for their professional role and for other audiences. Results: Among 64 attendees, 58 members provided feedback (91%). Overall, their preferred format was divided with 24/47 (51%) preferring the infographic to the critical appraisal. Preference varied by professional role, with 15/22 (68%) of physicians preferring the critical appraisal and 8/12 (67%) of nurses preferring the infographic. The critical appraisal was rated higher for clarity (mean 7.8 vs. 7.0; p = 0.03), while the infographic was rated higher for aesthetic appeal (mean 7.2 vs. 5.0; p

Suggested Citation

  • Katelynn Crick & Lisa Hartling, 2015. "Preferences of Knowledge Users for Two Formats of Summarizing Results from Systematic Reviews: Infographics and Critical Appraisals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-8, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0140029
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140029
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140029
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140029&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0140029?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0140029. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.